E3 Awards...?

[Che Musashi]

Ok my first complaint. The best console game at e3 wasn't even playable yet somehow it wins by default.

And then my second complaint the Best Fighting Game: Soul Calibur 2, did they not see Evo there. Was that one kiosk hard to find?

In fact I look at all those awards and winners and I question how many of them were truely playable at E3!

The whole awards are industry and financially driven. The E3 awards are the Golden Globes of gaming. BullSh t.

[Molloy]

Well obviously.

Vice City won a load of Game Stars and BAFTA awards as well, mainly because it was British.

[Garibaldi Biscuit]

"Somehow" it wins by default?

How about the breathtaking videos that showcased adaptive A.I, truly interactive scenery, and a level of endowing everyday objects with realistic physics to a point that has never been seen in a videogame? I understood the upset over Doom3 winning awards last year as the video showed us what we all expected, a creepy FPS, solid yet no suprises, but Half-Life2 utterly smashed peoples expectations.

You don't necessarily have to lay your hands on something to be able to applaud the design and potential contained therein, those HL2 videos are almost all anyone wanted to discuss after E3, and they filled me with an enthusiasm and optimism for the future of gaming that I haven't felt in quite a while.

[Che Musashi]

Well if the criteria for winning is good video, then Konami should win every year by default.

How can you tell how a game plays and all that from a video? The best game of next year for sure, but what was all the playable stuff there that bad?

[Ish]

I must admit I'm with Che here. The number of times we've seen video showing 'gameplay footage' that looks astounding and translates into a mediocre if ever released game just makes a mockery of the many games that actually make it to market delivering what others can only promise.

Until you've played it it as the potenital to be a stinker.

[recipher]

So what's new... nothing changes.

[recipher]

How can you tell how a game plays and all that from a video? The best game of next year for sure, but what was all the playable stuff there that bad?

I think, to a certain extent, Halo 2 and HL2 are being judged not only on the videos, but on the potential shown, based on their predecessors.

Good or bad? Who knows?

Doom 3 was best in show last year but not this year. I think it depends a lot on who makes the most effort!

[Garibaldi Biscuit]

Well if the criteria for winning is good video, then Konami should win every year by default.

How can you tell how a game plays and all that from a video? The best game of next year for sure, but what was all the playable stuff there that bad?

You miss my point.

Konami's videos are great to watch, of course, but they are often little more than cut-scenes and so, despite containing lots of style and skill, you can tell little about how the game itself will play as a result. Such is the reason that any scrap of MGS3 info is being torn apart by gamers like wild dogs, it was just a teaser, whereas due to the closeness of when HL2 is due to be released Valve were able to show so much more.

The Half-Life2 videos were taken from a playable build ( think about it, game is out in September, most of it is no doubt completed already ) and demonstrated a new engine which could not only create an atmospheric single-player adventure but showcased some amazing ideas for the future of multiplayer ( being able to create barricades and set traps using scenery, to name a couple ), and as Half-Life before it did it once again looks set to raise the bar for FPS' the world over.

I can appreciate your fear of Valve pulling a smokescreen on the audience by generating some unrealistic gameplay elements, but with the game due for release in just a handful of months it would hardly be in their best interests to do so, and after the legacy that Half-Life has left behind it there is, IMO, absolutly no reason to doubt that they can pull this off.

[Che Musashi]

The only thing I'm saying is that, the should have a set standard for awarding a game and then use that same criteria every year. It just seems like these E3 folks are handing out awards for anything that looked pretty.

If the gameplay backs up the goods then by all means, crown it the new king of videogames.

[recipher]

And I think, to be fair, both Halo 2 and HL2 would need an extended amount of play time (which I doubt is available to all at e3) to really get to grips with, so the manner in which they were shown seems about right to me.

[horribleman]

All they are really saying (IMO) is 'These are the most promising titles we have seen, based upon precedent, limited exposure and instinct (plus a bit of fanboyism)'. They should rename them the most promising E3 stuff or something a bit more snappy.

[Bomberman UK]

If they have nice graphics they must be good!

Come on, this is bull**** and an insult to all the great playable games on the show floor. Just because a game had a good predecessor, doesn't mean it's sequel will definately be as good. Look at games like Mario Sunshine, Monkey Ball 2 or MGS2.

The awards should be "Best movie of the show", "Best movie of a racing game" etc... How on earth can anyone say a video of GT4 deserves the award "Best racing game" more than F-Zero GX which played like a dream? It's ridiculous and shows how hype is more important than games in the industry today.

[Chief H]

But how can you possibly comment on the "gameplay" involved in a game when it is merely being promoted, as most are at E3? Even if we were given playable code of HL2 or Halo2, we wouldn't be able to truly make a fair appraisal of the game by the inevitably resticted content of any such demonstration. We may complain that rolling demos may not be able to tell us everything about what a game has to offer, gameply-wise but a three minute experience of one part that makes up a title can hardly be used as a fair judgement either. Reviewers spend hours, days, sometimes even weeks on particularly special titles, trying to sift out the gems from the mere stones. How can a similar appraisal be made in the brief time most visitors will be given with each title on display at a convention such as E3? We can see a few minutes of a game but what are the other five to thirty-five hours involved with the game like? The pacing or structure of a single chapter may not reflect the product in its entirety. By the comments suggested in this thread, we aren't allowed to make any sort of judgement on what is the best game at E3 until they are released, which is missing the point.

The E3 awards point towards the titles on show that produce the most excitement - which is what the industry ought to be all about at the moment, in my opinion. Which games give you a tingly feeling in your toes as you anticipate how you'll be playing games in the next year or so. For me Half Life 2 was all about that. Valve showed us many, many things, a couple of which were largely unecessary - they didn't need to tell us as much about HL2 and the 'Source' engine as they did but their boldness and confidence in their product that allowed them to do so in the manner in which they did outshone just about everything else on the show floor. Confidence that is instantly transferred to all who were lucky enough to experience their presentations be it in person or via webcast.

As with all previews, all you can really do is go with your gut instinct which, as always, can be largely subjective. There will be no definitive list - each opinion shall differ. I personally am tired of year upon year seeing konami's film-like trailers used to advertise quite a different medium. Especially after seeing how much they can keep a secret with regards to MGS2. As a campaign to promote MGS2 it was genius and I applaud that, but when you see the hour hand come full circle as MGS3 is revealed, I just don't want to see the same thing happen again: Show us some meager bites, then stun us when the full game ships and we've been looking at the wrong part again. This villager will not listen to Hideo Kojima cry "wolf!" once again. Valve's frank openness with regards to their technical demonstration of their product only highlights how inappropriate Kojima's film-like trailers are at promoting interactive media.

Alas, I have digressed far from my original topic of discussion, my analytical stance and unbiased nature broken. I look forward to hearing more of your opinions on the matter.

[snowman]

Hmmmmmm
Well i don't see much point in moaning over it.

But i may aswell as seen as i'm here 8) OK basically I agree with che ect... How can you possible credit a game as being the best of show when it is only in video form.
It's like, imagine e3 was about music. It's like awarding a song, the best at show when you haven't heard it you've just watched the video . It's stupid and wrong.

NOBS


ahem

[Tig]

How can you tell how a game plays and all that from a video?

Now normally I would agree with this.

But, just out of interest, have you seen the Half-Life 2 videos? We're not talking about a Konami cutscene here.

Although journalists should try and get their hands on the games before they make a judgement, E3 seems a pretty rubbish environment in which to judge the quality of a game in any case. There are loads of 'slow-burning', deep games which would be impossible to get a feel for in that environment... so giving out any awards is just guesswork based on imagined potential.

And you'd have to be a brick not to imagine the potential of HL2.